Is there a scientific theory that explains the quality of pain in terms of the physical universe?

[untermensche]

Something unexplained? God did it!

That's as wild a conclusion as somehow concluding one's mind is not autonomous.

Autonomy of mind is required for a coherent argument that one believes to be made.

How is a belief or observation translated into an argument unless the mind is free to make arguments?

So you assume that my remark was serious? That it represents what I think? Sarcasm must be a difficult concept for some folk to grasp.

I saw it as an attempt to dismiss the need to explain the phenomena of experiencing.

I saw it as a cheap dodge.

Why don't you answer the question?

 

[no-one-particular]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

 

[DBT]

So you assume that my remark was serious? That it represents what I think? Sarcasm must be a difficult concept for some folk to grasp.

I saw it as an attempt to dismiss the need to explain the phenomena of experiencing.

I saw it as a cheap dodge.

Why don't you answer the question?

Seeing it that way misses the point. I have answered the question, it is not understood how a brain generates sensation even though it is clear that it does (God does not do it).

It is you, yourself who dismisses all research and evidence for brain agency in favour of your autonomy of mind assertion. All the while neglecting to provide a rational, evidence based, argument to support your claims.

 

[fromderinside]

Sensation. Some physical event perceived as important enough to one should attend, perhaps even ones should be aware. Anyway some effort was used to develop systems specifically capable of pulling whatever it is out of the environment through the process of evolution. Evolution is a process where changes are made to how living things develop over generations and sometimes within generations. Apparently there is advantage to so changing organism extant in their continued presence in the form of energy saving, entropy function.

In broad terms sensing is the process whereby physical energy is made noticeable to organisms. Evidence exists organisms with these capabilities are more adept at reproducing. Wow, an explanation for sense, the process of making thing in the world usable to organisms and it's only been around in the minds of men for about one hundred-fifty-five years. So sensing is the physical process pr converting energy of one sort or another into neural stuff useable by the organism for processing what that energy usefully conveys to the being with the capacity for such activity.

The process is enabled by the organism programming the development of systems which use energy specific chemicals which are then used by biological subsystems to encode specific information for use in getting sustenance materials and navigation information among other biological support processes which it uses to continue being alive.

Doesn't seem so mysterious to me. Now if photic energy were employed to process mechanical airborne stimulation I might be surprised a bit.

From my readings and researches it takes a lot of generations for such capabilities to develop within living tissue. However life has been around for over three billion years reproducing, overall, at the rate of one generation every few milliseconds which seems plenty of time for such a process to accomplish whatever task found useful.

 

[untermensche]

Sensation. Some physical event perceived as important enough to one should attend, perhaps even ones should be aware.

It is not a physical event.

You confuse a sensation with a stimulus for it's production. A sensation is something experienced by a mind.

But you are right there is a "one" that attends, a "one" that is aware of all things including sensations.

 

[untermensche]

So you assume that my remark was serious? That it represents what I think? Sarcasm must be a difficult concept for some folk to grasp.

I saw it as an attempt to dismiss the need to explain the phenomena of experiencing.

I saw it as a cheap dodge.

Why don't you answer the question?

Seeing it that way misses the point. I have answered the question, it is not understood how a brain generates sensation even though it is clear that it does (God does not do it).

It is you, yourself who dismisses all research and evidence for brain agency in favour of your autonomy of mind assertion. All the while neglecting to provide a rational, evidence based, argument to support your claims.

There is no evidence of brain agency.

No controlling mechanisms are known.

Only places where it appears control is happening.

 

[DBT]

Seeing it that way misses the point. I have answered the question, it is not understood how a brain generates sensation even though it is clear that it does (God does not do it).

It is you, yourself who dismisses all research and evidence for brain agency in favour of your autonomy of mind assertion. All the while neglecting to provide a rational, evidence based, argument to support your claims.

There is no evidence of brain agency.

No controlling mechanisms are known.

Only places where it appears control is happening.

How strange, you ignore all research and evidence in order to maintain your irrational belief in autonomy of mind.

 

[fromderinside]

Sensation. Some physical event perceived as important enough to one should attend, perhaps even ones should be aware.

It is not a physical event.


But you are right there is a "one" that attends, a "one" that is aware of all things including sensations.

Sensation that which is sensed. Thanks for bring up 'one' which I used improperly.

The sentence should read "That which is sensed may be attended and even become an awareness, all physical processes."

 

[Speakpigeon]

Please stop the noise and address the OP.

Here it is again:

Do you think there is a scientific theory that explains the quality of pain in terms of the physical universe?
EB

EB

 

[untermensche]

Sensation. Some physical event perceived as important enough to one should attend, perhaps even ones should be aware.

It is not a physical event.


But you are right there is a "one" that attends, a "one" that is aware of all things including sensations.

Sensation that which is sensed. Thanks for bring up 'one' which I used improperly.

The sentence should read "That which is sensed may be attended and even become an awareness, all physical processes."

To sense requires a "one".

It requires a "one" that can sense things.

Without a "one" with the ability to sense things there are no sensations.

 

[untermensche]

Seeing it that way misses the point. I have answered the question, it is not understood how a brain generates sensation even though it is clear that it does (God does not do it).

It is you, yourself who dismisses all research and evidence for brain agency in favour of your autonomy of mind assertion. All the while neglecting to provide a rational, evidence based, argument to support your claims.

There is no evidence of brain agency.

No controlling mechanisms are known.

Only places where it appears control is happening.

How strange, you ignore all research and evidence in order to maintain your irrational belief in autonomy of mind.

There is no research demonstrating an autonomy of brain.

All examination of brain tissue shows it to be reflexive, not autonomous.

But to sort and put ideas together, to accept some ideas and reject other ideas, and post them on line requires an autonomy of mind.

If something is required for something to happen and the thing happens there is no research needed to show the thing required is there.

If oxygen is required for a match to ignite and the match ignites there is no research needed to show that oxygen was there.

If autonomy of mind is needed to accept some ideas and reject others in a meaningful way no research is needed to show that autonomy is there.

 

[DBT]

How strange, you ignore all research and evidence in order to maintain your irrational belief in autonomy of mind.

There is no research demonstrating an autonomy of brain.

All examination of brain tissue shows it to be reflexive, not autonomous.

But to sort and put ideas together, to accept some ideas and reject other ideas, and post them on line requires an autonomy of mind.

If something is required for something to happen and the thing happens there is no research needed to show the thing required is there.

If oxygen is required for a match to ignite and the match ignites there is no research needed to show that oxygen was there.

If autonomy of mind is needed to accept some ideas and reject others in a meaningful way no research is needed to show that autonomy is there.

Utter and Complete Nonsense;



1)Neural architecture and its electrochemical activity is not an autonomous system because a change in brain chemistry can and does radically alter perception and thought in ways that are not willed.

2)Brain lesions can and do alter perception, personality and conscious thought.

3)A temporary failure of memory, connectivity, means that this information is not consciously available, eg, you can't remember where you left your keys.

4)A progressive and permanent loss of memory always results in a progressive breakdown of consciousness.

5)That consciousness (in this instance, the perception of conscious decision making)is directly linked to the physical and information condition of a brain is indisputable.

6)''Consciousness'' itself does not think or decide, it has no autonomy, it is a behavioural reflection of the physical/informational conditon of a brain from moment to moment.

7)''Consciousness'' does not autonomously choose to lose memory, to make irrational decisions, to perceive illusions, any more than it autonomously chooses rational thought and sound observation. All of these are reflections of the physical condition of a brain, not autonomy of mind or conscious .


Each aspect of the cognition to action sequence being related to its respective neural structures;
perceptual processing
• Superior colliculus

Modulation of cognition
(memory, attention)
• Cingulate cortex
• Hippocampus
• Basal forebrain

Representation of
emotional response
• Somatosensory-relatedcortices

Representation of
perceived action
• Left frontal operculum
• Superior temporal gyrus

Motivational evaluation
• Amygdala
• Orbitofrontal cortex

Social reasoning
• Prefrontal cortex


Prefrontal Cortex damage:
1 - 'The 20-year-old female subject studied by Damasio et al. was intelligent and academically competent, but she stole from her family and other children, abused other people both verbally and physically, lied frequently, and was sexually promiscuous and completely lacking in empathy toward her illegitimate child. In addition, the researchers say, "She never expressed guilt or remorse for her misbehavior'' ''Both of the subjects performed well on measures of intellectual ability, but, like people with adult-onset prefrontal cortex damage, they were socially impaired, failed to consider future consequences when making decisions, and failed to respond normally to punishment or behavioral interventions. "Unlike adult-onset patients, however," the researchers say, "the two patients had defective social and moral reasoning, suggesting that the acquisition of complex social conventions and moral rules had been impaired." While adult-onset patients possess factual knowledge about social and moral rules (even though they often cannot follow these rules in real life), Damasio et al.'s childhood-onset subjects appeared unable to learn these rules at all. This may explain, the researchers say, why their childhood-onset subjects were much more antisocial, and showed less guilt and remorse, than subjects who suffered similar damage in adulthood.''

2 - ''Goldberg brings his description of frontal dysfunction to life with insightful accounts of clinical cases. These provide a good description of some of the consequences of damage to frontal areas and the disruption and confusion of behavior that often results. Vladimir, for example, is a patient whose frontal lobes were surgically resectioned after a train accident. As a result, he is unable to form a plan, displays an extreme lack of drive and mental rigidity and is unaware of his disorder. In another account, Toby, a highly intelligent man who suffers from attention deficits and possibly a bipolar disorder, displays many of the behavioral features of impaired frontal lobe function including immaturity, poor foresight and impulsive behavior''

On the neurology of morals
3 - ''Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.''

 

[untermensche]

How strange, you ignore all

I ignore nothing. Now lets looks at your points with some understanding. With the understanding the autonomous mind is a creation of a reflexive stupid brain.

1)Neural architecture and its electrochemical activity is not an autonomous system because a change in brain chemistry can and does radically alter perception and thought in ways that are not willed.

Yes, when the stupid reflexive brain is exposed to things like LSD there is a change in activity. This alters what the mind experiences.

This says absolutely nothing about the autonomy of anything.

So your position is that there is no autonomy anywhere? You believe what you believe because a reflexive brain is stuck and cannot move?

2)Brain lesions can and do alter perception, personality and conscious thought.

Again, when the stupid reflexive brain is damaged there can be changes to what the mind perceives.

And once again this says nothing about the autonomy of anything.

Where does the autonomy for you to decide which ideas are correct and which are not come from?

3)A temporary failure of memory, connectivity, means that this information is not consciously available, eg, you can't remember where you left your keys.

Yes, when the mind autonomously searches for a memory sometimes it cannot be found, and sometimes it can.

Once again this says absolutely nothing about the autonomy of anything.

But it is an example of how the mind acts autonomously. The mind actively searches for a memory by doing something, just as the mind does something to move the arm.

4)A progressive and permanent loss of memory always results in a progressive breakdown of consciousness.

The patient with severe dementia still sees, they still hear. They are still conscious. Their consciousness has not been effected.

What has been effected is the autonomy of the mind. The brain damage associated with dementia has destroyed the activity that gives the mind autonomy.

The autonomy of mind is not a miracle. It arises out of specific activity. If that activity is altered, like with dementia or when asleep, the autonomy of the mind is also effected.

5)That consciousness (in this instance, the perception of conscious decision making)is directly linked to the physical and information condition of a brain is indisputable.

The autonomous mind arises from specific brain activity, true.

6)''Consciousness'' itself does not think or decide, it has no autonomy, it is a behavioural reflection of the physical/informational conditon of a brain from moment to moment.

This is pulled directly from your ass and you have nothing to prove it with. Nothing to even suggest it is true.

Thinking is only potentially autonomous. Some do not put any will into their thinking and they end up with nonsense like this.

7)''Consciousness'' does not autonomously choose to lose memory, to make irrational decisions, to perceive illusions, any more than it autonomously chooses rational thought and sound observation. All of these are reflections of the physical condition of a brain, not autonomy of mind or conscious .

The autonomous mind actively searches for memories, it autonomously makes decisions and sometimes makes irrational decisions. The autonomous mind does not create the visual experience, it experiences it.

You have failed to provide any rational point.

You have used your autonomous mind for folly.

 

[DBT]

That confirms it, you Mr Untermensche are a man of faith. Rejecting logic, reason, research and evidence in favour of your own notions.....because you can lift your arm at will: therefore autonomy of mind.

Meanwhile ignoring the mechanisms and means of your conscious experience...the work of the structures of the brain that produce the experience of consciousness and all its features and attributes.

I'll leave you to enjoy your comforting illusions.

 

[untermensche]

How do you think you are right unless you also firmly believe you have the autonomy to make decisions about which ideas are true?

It is more than experiencing autonomy.

It is the need for autonomy to decide which ideas are true and which are not.

An absolute need for autonomy exists.

This need can't be overturned with absolutely no understanding of the mind, without even knowing what the mind is.

You have nothing to answer the absolute need for autonomy for a mind to decide which ideas to believe and which to reject.

There is nothing irrational about saying the mind is an autonomous decision making faculty that arises from reflexive behavior of a brain.

It conflicts with no evidence, no study.

There is no study that looks at the mind.

There is no person that knows what it is.

 

[DBT]

How do you think you are right unless you also firmly believe you have the autonomy to make decisions about which ideas are true?.

It's not about what I happen to think or believe. It is not about me. It is what the research and evidence supports. If you had understood what was said in the articles that describe the research, results and evidence, you would understand precisely why your autonomy of mind assertion is absurd.

But, sadly, you don't. Instead of rationally considering this information you reject everything that does not conform to your own beliefs and just repeat your assertions regardless.

That is faith at work. No different to faith in religion.

 

[untermensche]

It is about human capabilities so it is about you.

It is about making a rational argument so maybe it is not about you.

So how do you decide which ideas are true and which are not unless you have the autonomy to decide things?

Ideas and concepts exist in a mind. They must be learned. Rational thinking must be learned.

And a mind can create new ideas when exposed to old ideas.

To do so takes the autonomy to do it.

 

[DBT]

It is about human capabilities so it is about you.

It is about making a rational argument so maybe it is not about you.

So how do you decide which ideas are true and which are not unless you have the autonomy to decide things?

Ideas and concepts exist in a mind. They must be learned. Rational thinking must be learned.

And a mind can create new ideas when exposed to old ideas.

To do so takes the autonomy to do it.

Human capabilities, as with all animals, are determined by physical makeup. In the case of cognitive functions, the architecture of a brain...a mouse brain - for example - not being capable of mathematical calculations, language, doing art or designing machinery. Not that I expect you to understand such a straightforward uncontroversial concept. You have your own notions.


When are you going to try to understand that 'lifting your arm at will'' is not evidence for autonomy of mind because it does not take into account the mechanisms and means of your conscious experience?

 

[fromderinside]

To sense requires a "one".

It requires a "one" that can sense things.

Without a "one" with the ability to sense things there are no sensations.

To sense requires a sensory system. Any organism, thing, that changes behavior due to changes in physical environment senses. So a sensory system may be as simple as some means of responding to changes in temperature, pressure, photic, acoustic, or other quality stimuli. For instance a lipid bilayer enclosing protoplasm might produce changes in chemistry in the region where physical differences are present which produce changes in activity, movementr, of the organism in response to temperature or chemical change. Sensation is being produced.

 

[untermensche]

To react is not the same thing as sensing.

The rock reacts when struck by another rock.

The rock does not have sensations.

To sense in humans requires both something capable of experiencing sensations (a mind) and the things it is capable of sensing, experiencing.

To experience the sunset is to know you are sensing it.

It is far more than merely a reaction.

The phenomena of experiencing is far more the piddly nothingness you think it is.

You confuse the dumb reflexive nature of the brain with the incredible ability of a mind to experience happiness.

It requires a serious mind to understand this.